Belaraus (Re: Protests in Spain:)

[shady financier]

Intentionally skirting the line so that I don't censor you as well.  I can tell that you are practiced at antagonizing your opposition, but do you have a rational argument to present?  I won't let you continue with your own style of insults for much longer.

G seems to be presenting a rational argument, albeit one to which you are not receptive. Unless I am mistaken (please correct me if I am, G), he is suggesting that the deeply contradictory beliefs (on many levels) being espoused here are the result of years of indoctrination and confusion. That indoctrination, by its very design, is meant to keep people scared and isolated. To keep them confused. It is difficult to free oneself from this confusion, without some outside perspective.

Let me quote one of the links posted by hazek:

Ah: "privatization" as Greece is about to learn, the lovely word that describes a fire sale of assets to one's creditors, courtesy of a "globalized" new world order.

This is interesting. Hazek furnished us with an article which I presume was meant to bolster his assertion that unbridled capitalism is good. Yet, this article specifically ridicules a banker who calls for privatization, which again is one of the basic canons of the anarcho-capitalist religion. This seems to be deeply incongruous, and supports the assertion that hazek is, in some way, struggling to reconcile what he accepts a priori (unrestricted privatization is good) and what he observes (economic devastation resulting from unrestricted privatization).

I agree, the world view typified by hazek is so riddled with self-contradictions and faithfully regurgitated nonsense from the likes of the pitiful Ayn Rand or the cult-like Mises.org. I'm tempted to consider this 'Anarcho-Capitalism' as the new Fascism.

It is endorsed by a bewildered middle-class under pressure by a manipulative ruling class, resentful, fearful and contemptuous of the underclass, bamboozled by the obliquities of international finance, fetishistic of the primacy of the will and wishing to return to some idealized glorious past. All very similar in my humble opinion to the support given various fascist movements in the 1930's.

[MoonShadow]

Intentionally skirting the line so that I don't censor you as well.  I can tell that you are practiced at antagonizing your opposition, but do you have a rational argument to present?  I won't let you continue with your own style of insults for much longer.

G seems to be presenting a rational argument, albeit one to which you are not receptive. Unless I am mistaken (please correct me if I am, G), he is suggesting that the deeply contradictory beliefs (on many levels) being espoused here are the result of years of indoctrination and confusion. That indoctrination, by its very design, is meant to keep people scared and isolated. To keep them confused. It is difficult to free oneself from this confusion, without some outside perspective.

Let me quote one of the links posted by hazek:

Ah: "privatization" as Greece is about to learn, the lovely word that describes a fire sale of assets to one's creditors, courtesy of a "globalized" new world order.

This is interesting. Hazek furnished us with an article which I presume was meant to bolster his assertion that unbridled capitalism is good. Yet, this article specifically ridicules a banker who calls for privatization, which again is one of the basic canons of the anarcho-capitalist religion. This seems to be deeply incongruous, and supports the assertion that hazek is, in some way, struggling to reconcile what he accepts a priori (unrestricted privatization is good) and what he observes (economic devastation resulting from unrestricted privatization).

I agree, the world view typified by hazek is so riddled with self-contradictions and faithfully regurgitated nonsense from the likes of the pitiful Ayn Rand or the cult-like Mises.org. I'm tempted to consider this 'Anarcho-Capitalism' as the new Fascism.

It is endorsed by a bewildered middle-class under pressure by a manipulative ruling class, resentful, fearful and contemptuous of the underclass, bamboozled by the obliquities of international finance, fetishistic of the primacy of the will and wishing to return to some idealized glorious past. All very similar in my humble opinion to the support given various fascist movements in the 1930's.

this is exactly what I am talking about.  There is no argument here, only hateful retoric.  You have a right to your opinion, but if you can't be more civil, you shall soon find yourself keeping your opinions to yourself.

[MoonShadow]

Intentionally skirting the line so that I don't censor you as well.  I can tell that you are practiced at antagonizing your opposition, but do you have a rational argument to present?  I won't let you continue with your own style of insults for much longer.

G seems to be presenting a rational argument, albeit one to which you are not receptive. Unless I am mistaken (please correct me if I am, G), he is suggesting that the deeply contradictory beliefs (on many levels) being espoused here are the result of years of indoctrination and confusion. That indoctrination, by its very design, is meant to keep people scared and isolated. To keep them confused. It is difficult to free oneself from this confusion, without some outside perspective.

At best, you and him are exposing an opinion about those you hold in opposition, and know next to nothing about how those you and him make assumptions about actually came to the opinions that they hold.  For myself, I was a true green as a young man, and my parents were real hippies.  I started to question the logic of the green and progressive movements on my own, and never even heard of Mises or Rothbard until those names were thrown at me by my father during an argument around 22 years old.  So I started to read, and then I was changed.  I never read Rand until I was 30 something, and thought it was okay, but I'm not a randian.

"If you are not a socialist at 20, then you have no heart; but if you are still a socialist at 40 then you have no sense."

Let me quote one of the links posted by hazek:

Ah: "privatization" as Greece is about to learn, the lovely word that describes a fire sale of assets to one's creditors, courtesy of a "globalized" new world order.

This is interesting. Hazek furnished us with an article which I presume was meant to bolster his assertion that unbridled capitalism is good. Yet, this article specifically ridicules a banker who calls for privatization, which again is one of the basic canons of the anarcho-capitalist religion. This seems to be deeply incongruous, and supports the assertion that hazek is, in some way, struggling to reconcile what he accepts a priori (unrestricted privatization is good) and what he observes (economic devastation resulting from unrestricted privatization).

Yes, you presumed, and failed to understand.  The banking systems of the Western world are not remotely privatized or 'deregulated'.  That's all BS.  It's never happened, and cannot happen, because the bankers own the government not the other way around.  That's the short answer.  Austrian economic thought (i.e. libertarian thought, praxeology) is incompatible with central banking.  Central banking is, by it's own definition, central control of the money markets.

And this thread needs to split...

Not sure why. Just want to spread the topics around?

This topic is about politics, and no longer about Bitcoin or Spain.

[shady financier]

Intentionally skirting the line so that I don't censor you as well.  I can tell that you are practiced at antagonizing your opposition, but do you have a rational argument to present?  I won't let you continue with your own style of insults for much longer.

G seems to be presenting a rational argument, albeit one to which you are not receptive. Unless I am mistaken (please correct me if I am, G), he is suggesting that the deeply contradictory beliefs (on many levels) being espoused here are the result of years of indoctrination and confusion. That indoctrination, by its very design, is meant to keep people scared and isolated. To keep them confused. It is difficult to free oneself from this confusion, without some outside perspective.

Let me quote one of the links posted by hazek:

Ah: "privatization" as Greece is about to learn, the lovely word that describes a fire sale of assets to one's creditors, courtesy of a "globalized" new world order.

This is interesting. Hazek furnished us with an article which I presume was meant to bolster his assertion that unbridled capitalism is good. Yet, this article specifically ridicules a banker who calls for privatization, which again is one of the basic canons of the anarcho-capitalist religion. This seems to be deeply incongruous, and supports the assertion that hazek is, in some way, struggling to reconcile what he accepts a priori (unrestricted privatization is good) and what he observes (economic devastation resulting from unrestricted privatization).

I agree, the world view typified by hazek is so riddled with self-contradictions and faithfully regurgitated nonsense from the likes of the pitiful Ayn Rand or the cult-like Mises.org. I'm tempted to consider this 'Anarcho-Capitalism' as the new Fascism.

It is endorsed by a bewildered middle-class under pressure by a manipulative ruling class, resentful, fearful and contemptuous of the underclass, bamboozled by the obliquities of international finance, fetishistic of the primacy of the will and wishing to return to some idealized glorious past. All very similar in my humble opinion to the support given various fascist movements in the 1930's.

this is exactly what I am talking about.  There is no argument here, only hateful retoric.  You have a right to your opinion, but if you can't be more civil, you shall soon find yourself keeping your opinions to yourself.

I can be more civil, but why is it acceptable for some people to make vast sweeping blatantly inaccurate and false statements about people with whom they disagree politically or in terms of economic thought?

I have said repeatedly that I am not a socialist, but that I do not consider socialism an insult, in response I have been called a socialist anyway (as if socialists don't know whether they are socialists or not) and furthermore I've been told that I support the nature and the mismanagements of the government of Belarus. I do not support that, and it is deeply offensive to me for it to be suggested that I do. Why has this false accusation been leveled against me? Because I have said that government must be an agent of the community as a whole, because I have suggested that there is merit to the concept that we who live together in a society have common interests that it makes sense to pool resources in order to maintain.

This is merely to state my conception of the role of government, taxes, expenditure and society. It's a big fucking leap to conclude from that that I want government thugs to kick peoples doors down and drag away their stuff to spend it maintaining dead-beats and losers in the lap of luxury.

This dire misrepresentation is not only completely unjustified, insulting to me and to the vast majority of working people that pay their taxes and benefit from the expenditure of those taxes in various ways at various times of their life. Therefore a vast majority of tax paying people would have to consider themselves the dead-beats and losers, stealing from... themselves I suppose.

If I were to say instead that I want to tear down all government on the grounds that "what survives is good" and proudly announce that I would be happy to watch children starve to death to uphold my principal against "welfare" and anyone who does not agree with this is a "socialist" and that all "socialists" basically support genocide andf hate freedom, this would be considered reasonable argument and not just "hateful rhetoric" where no attempt is made to understand how or why those that disagree with me hold their point of view..

[MoonShadow]

I can be more civil, but why is it acceptable for some people to make vast sweeping blatantly inaccurate and false statements about people with whom they disagree politically or in terms of economic thought?

I let that slide because I figure that you can't really help that, and everyone has the right to be wrong.

I have said repeatedly that I am not a socialist, but that I do not consider socialism an insult, in response I have been called a socialist anyway (as if socialists don't know whether they are socialists or not)

Amazingly, some do not.

 and furthermore I've been told that I support the nature and the mismanagements of the government of Belarus. I do not support that, and it is deeply offensive to me for it to be suggested that I do. Why has this false accusation been leveled against me? Because I have said that government must be an agent of the community as a whole, because I have suggested that there is merit to the concept that we who live together in a society have common interests that it makes sense to pool resources in order to maintain.

This is merely to state my conception of the role of government, taxes, expenditure and society. It's a big fucking leap to conclude from that that I want government thugs to kick peoples doors down and drag away their stuff to spend it maintaining dead-beats and losers in the lap of luxury.

I'm sure that you sincerely believe that, but in reality it is a matter of degree.  If you accept that a legitimately elected government should have the power to take the resources necessary for survival from one group of people and give it to another group of people by use of the collective force of government, then the remainder is just a concern about under what conditions.  I'm sure that you would reject divine right as a legimitate justification for a nobility to impose their will upon the majority 'mobility' (yes, that's where we get "mob" from); but would you accept the results of a presumedly democratic elected congress doing something similar?  Why?  Because some special group that you agree with, desire to support, or identify with receives the benefits of that ruling?  I'm Cherokee, but wouldn't for the life of me want to live on a reservation for the side benefit of a $300 per month check and food stamps.  You probably wouldn't either, but would you argue in favor of continuing the practice for your cousins?  I would not, and do not.  The conditions that come with taxpayers' money pretty much promises that the mediocre remain where they are.

This dire misrepresentation is not only completely unjustified, insulting to me and to the vast majority of working people that pay their taxes and benefit from the expenditure of those taxes in various ways at various times of their life. Therefore a vast majority of tax paying people would have to consider themselves the dead-beats and losers, stealing from... themselves I suppose.

Worse, from their own children.  It's not unjustified, as it can be demostrated as being economicly accurate.  You just don't see yourself as we see you.  That is understandable.  Everyone likes to think of themselves as the reasonable ones, as the moderate.  Few people ever question themselves or their own indoctrination.  The irony of all that, which I'm sure that you will reject out of hand, is that the various flavors of liberty minded are those few.  This is why there are so few of us in the political sphere to begin with.  There is no such thing as indoctrination for libertarians, it's contrary to governments of any sort to promote that.  If you attended a school in the US, public or private, you have been indoctrinated in the church of the state, as you have literally been institutionalized.

If I were to say instead that I want to tear down all government on the grounds that "what survives is good" and proudly announce that I would be happy to watch children starve to death to uphold my principal against "welfare" and anyone who does not agree with this is a "socialist" and that all "socialists" basically support genocide andf hate freedom, this would be considered reasonable argument and not just "hateful rhetoric" where no attempt is made to understand how or why those that disagree with me hold their point of view..

If you want to say thinks generally about what you think libertarians want, go right ahead.  You are allowed to be wrong, but you have been intentionally antagonizing your opposition, not engaging in a debate.  I have no problem with you openly displaying your ignorance of your peers, no harm comes to me or others by that at all.